Nick Piggin wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > >> Nick Piggin wrote: >> >>> Andrew, IMO this is another bug to hold 2.6.11 for. >> >> >> >> Sure. I wouldn't consider Bodo's patch to be the one to use though.. > > > No. Something similar could be done that works on all architectures > and all wait_task_inactive callers (and is confined to sched.c). That > would still be more or less a hack to work around smtnice's unfortunate > locking though. > Something like the following (untested) extension of Bodo's work could be the minimal fix for 2.6.11. As I've said though, I'd consider it a hack and prefer to do something about the locking. That could be done after 2.6.11 though. Depends how you feel. Bodo, I wonder if this looks like a suitable fix for your problem?